Sox/Paolicelli
Recently, a federal district judge in Massachusetts blocked a deportation flight to Libya. This was not the first time a court got involved with the matter of deportations. Since the beginning of the new administration, Federal judges have attempted to block flights or reinstate migrants that have been deported, frustrating the administration's plans. Regardless of personal opinion, these orders should lead to questions about the power and scope of the judicial branch. How much power do the courts have, and what approach should they use to rule on cases?
Let’s start with the first question: How much power should the courts have? The Sox/Paolicelli ticket sides with the Perseverance party position which is that the courts should strictly abide by the guidelines laid out in the Constitution and, using original intent, further clarify what the Constitution means. For example, judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution, however it is heavily implied and Alexander Hamiton argued in Federalist No. 78 that the courts would be effectively useless without it. An originalist view of the judicial branch gives great authority in interpreting the law, but all the branches have this responsibility as well, making the judicial branch the weakest of the three.
Furthermore, what approach should the courts use to rule on cases? It is the view of this ticket, and the view of the Perseverance party, that the courts should strictly look to the Constitution and original intent to rule on cases. This approach leads to the most stability in our country due to the fact that it is the least subjective position to take. The other party positions can have a lot of upside, however there is much more downside. Let’s look at the issue of abortion for example. The Compassion party makes the claim that the judiciary plays a role in determining what is moral, which can lead to inferring rights not explicitly mentioned in the constitution or in any other founding documents. The Supreme Court inferred a so-called “right-to-privacy” in the 14th Amendment which was the basis for their Roe vs. Wade decision, a ruling that set the precedent for the abortions of tens of millions of babies. An example of a non-interventionist decision, which the vision party in practice supports, would look like the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization case. This ruling left the issue of abortion to the states, leading some states like California to expand access to abortion, causing an 11% increase in abortions in 2023. If the Declaration of Independence is to be taken with validity comparable to the Constitution, which we believe it should, then the right to life should be guaranteed to everyone. Therefore a purely originalist ruling would have banned abortion entirely.
That is not instituting an opinion about morality, that is following the law. The courts do not need to step out of the framework of the founding documents to be moral because they are engrained with Judeo-Christian morality. If complications with the Constitution arise, then it can be amended. At the end of the day, the judiciary’s job is to interpret the law, not decide moral questions. Even if a judge’s opinion being enacted leads to genuinely good outcomes like Brown vs. Board of Education, it can set the precedent for harmful decisions down the road. This is why Sox/Paolicelli takes the Perseverance party stance, because it gives the courts a moral framework to abide by. If this position were properly applied, then trust in the courts would rebound and our nation would be in a much better position than it is today.